Members of the public pressed the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors on the lack of public detail for multi‑million dollar RICO‑related expenditures during the board’s meeting, and the board voted to approve items 116–121 without amendment.

Why it matters: Speakers said millions were listed on the agenda as a single line item without a breakdown and asked that the board provide transparency on how RICO funds are distributed. Several callers said records requests and public‑body camera backlogs left residents without timely access to evidence that relates to these expenditures.

Public questions and staff responses
Catherine Polk, who signed up to speak on the county‑attorney agenda items, told the board the public had little chance to review hundreds of items on consent and that RICO and litigation funding “was like some big lump sum” with “no breakdown.” Kristen Veil told supervisors the delay in public‑body camera requests—she said there was a “3 to 4 year backlog”—stripped citizens of due process rights.

Andrea Cummings of the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office said outside counsel handled legal analysis for the RICO matters and that she understood the board had met in executive session “to discuss what the application was and to review the legality of the application.” She added, “I can’t speak to any further details about it.”

County Manager Jennifer Pekorski said the RICO expenditures are handled “within the county attorney’s budget and have been reviewed by counsel as appropriate.”

Board action
After public comment the board considered items 116–121 as listed on the agenda. A supervisor moved approval of items 116–121 and a second was registered; the board voted unanimously to approve the items.

What the board did not do
Speakers sought further line‑item detail and public hearings on RICO spending. Board members and staff said legal review and some deliberations occurred in executive session; staff declined to release additional details during public comment, citing confidentiality and pending legal processes. No new public hearing on those expenditures was scheduled during the meeting.

Context and next steps
Public commenters repeatedly linked concerns about RICO expenditures to broader questions about timely public access to records and surveillance footage. Supervisors and staff acknowledged the public’s requests but also said statutory processes and attorney‑client considerations guided how and when details could be disclosed.

A spokesperson in the county attorney’s office or the county manager’s office would be the probable points of contact for follow‑up questions about how the county will respond to requests for further detail or to information about when or whether additional public briefings would be scheduled.